Sports Interactive Community

Search

Is it time for an all new version of the game to be released, and not just another data update and a couple of new cosmetic features?

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the forum FAQ and the House Rules and Forum Guidelines.
You will have to register before you can post. If you find your registration is rejected, please try again using a different username. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Suggestions for future versions
Individual ideas on one subject should still be posted in the wishlist thread, however if you want to discuss your idea with others please create your own thread. Please name your topics sensibly and give an indication of what it is about.
For general ideas or a list please use this Wishlist topic. You can view some older suggestions here

It's been six years since CM4. I'm not saying that there hasn't been any changes to the game in the last few encarnations, but seriously it's been a while since the the last all-new version was released.

The current slider tactical system has reached its development potential. It needs to be replaced by something more flexible and realistic. There should more tactical variables but fewer ordinal options within each variable.

The game can also be vastly improved by introducing a set piece and set play designer. It could do with more options to set up combinations between specific players in a tactical system.

I think SI are focusing too heavily on recreating "realistic" score lines and league tables for the ai; on "tweaking" the current framework to the nth degree of realism. However I think so long as the current tactical module remains unchanged, that nth degree cannot be achieved because the match engine is limited in its potential.

The "winning formula" of the cm/fm series lay in the vast player attribute database, not in the slider tactical module (as I have mentioned before). So SI should not feel reluctant to change that part of the game considering its age.

It's been six years since CM4. I'm not saying that there hasn't been any changes to the game in the last few encarnations, but seriously it's been a while since the the last all-new version was released.

The current slider tactical system has reached its development potential. It needs to be replaced by something more flexible and realistic. There should more tactical variables but fewer ordinal options within each variable.

The game can also be vastly improved by introducing a set piece and set play designer. It could do with more options to set up combinations between specific players in a tactical system.

I think SI are focusing too heavily on recreating "realistic" score lines and league tables for the ai; on "tweaking" the current framework to the nth degree of realism. However I think so long as the current tactical module remains unchanged, that nth degree cannot be achieved because the match engine is limited in its potential.

The "winning formula" of the cm/fm series lay in the vast player attribute database, not in the slider tactical module (as I have mentioned before). So SI should not feel reluctant to change that part of the game considering its age.

If you're going to fanboy can you at least give some constructive reasons to back up a "no". I mean the onus is surely on the game to constantly improve rather than remain static.

Honestly there are so many things that can be improved to make the game more realistic and involving. The training module should be more integrated with matchday tactical module so that a particular tactic or pressing style you worked on in training can be pulled off during the match. These are fundamental aspects necessary for a realistic simulation, not just cosmetic changes.

Set piece designer I agree with, but I can't agree with anything else.

The tactical system works fine and in no way does it need to be replaced. Extra options fine, but that's all.

Realistic scorelines are not limited by the match engine's potential. If anything, the more complex it becomes the harder this will be to achieve.

Also, while my initial reaction was that FM2008 hadn't made a big leap, I keep spotting new things, much of which has received little publicity. The game makes as much progress as possible given financial and time constraints.

Originally posted by djht:
If you're going to fanboy can you at least give some constructive reasons to back up a "no". I mean the onus is surely on the game to constantly improve rather than remain static.

Honestly there are so many things that can be improved to make the game more realistic and involving. The training module should be more integrated with matchday tactical module so that a particular tactic or pressing style you worked on in training can be pulled off during the match. These are fundamental aspects necessary for a realistic simulation, not just cosmetic changes.

In fairness, they answered the question you asked in the thread title. You haven't gone into any depth on your ideas, so there isn't much else to answer.

I do agree with linking tactics with training - that was featured in The Bootroom fanzine last month in some depth, including a set piece designer.

i dont think they'll change sliders and they can't be replaced. player instructions is smth that is quite basic right now and this needs improvment. set pieces especialy. I like realistic score lines, it's suposed to be simulation of football.

I'm all for new stuff but just don't think they got time for some revolutonary changes...

Originally posted by playmaker:
Set piece designer I agree with, but I can't agree with anything else.

The tactical system works fine and in no way does it need to be replaced. Extra options fine, but that's all.

Realistic scorelines are not limited by the match engine's potential. If anything, the more complex it becomes the harder this will be to achieve.

Also, while my initial reaction was that FM2008 hadn't made a big leap, I keep spotting new things, much of which has received little publicity. The game makes as much progress as possible given financial and time constraints.

Originally posted by djht:
It's been six years since CM4. I'm not saying that there hasn't been any changes to the game in the last few encarnations, but seriously it's been a while since the the last all-new version was released.

That's because there has only ever been 2 "new" games released. The original game and the first FM after the split. I'm all up for improvement, but not starting from scratch thanks.

The current slider tactical system has reached its development potential. It needs to be replaced by something more flexible and realistic. There should more tactical variables but fewer ordinal options within each variable.

I would probably agree that there needs to be a change with regards to certain tactical instructions, (set-pieces to name but 1 example). Like I said above though, this is an area of the existing game that I want to see improved. I do not want them to start agains from scratch and encounter a whole host of new problems for no apparrant benefit.

The game can also be vastly improved by introducing a set piece and set play designer. It could do with more options to set up combinations between specific players in a tactical system.

I think SI are focusing too heavily on recreating "realistic" score lines and league tables for the ai; on "tweaking" the current framework to the nth degree of realism. However I think so long as the current tactical module remains unchanged, that nth degree cannot be achieved because the match engine is limited in its potential.

So you want the whole game to be changed because you are unhappy with the way that the tactics module works at present. I would have thought that a far more sensible, cost effective and time effective idea would be to improve the tactics module.

The "winning formula" of the cm/fm series lay in the vast player attribute database, not in the slider tactical module (as I have mentioned before). So SI should not feel reluctant to change that part of the game considering its age.

I wish you would make up your mind. Do you want an "all new version of the game" as commented in your thread title, (simply for effect), or do you just want them to improve the tactical module, (which is what the guts of your post actually stated?

When I say an "all new version" of course I don't mean overhauling everything but rather a version which introduces significant match engine changes. By FM standards that makes it "all new" because we are used to cosmetic changes like media interaction and 'fan days'.

Views expressed in this post are those of the author & do not necessarily represent the views of SI

Posts

38,594

Tactical sliders - not one person who says they should be replaced has come up with even a remotely good alternative, let alone a better alternative.

Set piece editor - isn't going to happen any time soon bacuse it would give the human managers a massive advantage over the AI. It would need an absolutely massive amount of work to get it working right, and an even larger amount of work to get the AI using it properly.

Set piece designer I agree with, but I can't agree with anything else.

For Set Pieces, even just positional view of how our chosen set piece configuration will look like would be enough. It's annoying to have to wait until match day to see how your players are going to arranged.

I'm going to go against the trend so far and say 'Yes' however. The whole game surrounding tactics and matches is feeling rather stale and old and needs an injection of creativity. Six iterations of the current system is a long time in software terms to not have any changes made.

Probably the only Chinese guy goes to Leeds' away game. Occasionally accompany by the missus

Posts

7,514

quote:

Originally posted by djht:
If you're going to fanboy can you at least give some constructive reasons to back up a "no". I mean the onus is surely on the game to constantly improve rather than remain static.

Honestly there are so many things that can be improved to make the game more realistic and involving. The training module should be more integrated with matchday tactical module so that a particular tactic or pressing style you worked on in training can be pulled off during the match. These are fundamental aspects necessary for a realistic simulation, not just cosmetic changes.

ffs all i said was "no" and i am fanboy now? the entry level is getting lower all the time.

All that needs to be done is an evolution of the current version - no drastic overhaul is needed to any one area.

I can't see the slider system disappearing anytime soon but what is required is a change to all the other stuff surrounding the tactics, such as more indepth match statistics and graphs for analysis, selectable highlights of specific events (off target shots only, tackles, crosses etc), more input from your assistant manager in assessing your teams or oppisitions performance during a match. Really, enhancements that tie back to tactics better so it's not too difficult to comprehend and made just a little more accessable.

New skin.
New best eleven feature.
New tactical feature (opposition instructions).
New Transfer Centre screen.
New coach report system.
New Assistant reports screen.
New player match rating system...

To be honest I could go on and on listing differences between FM07 & FM08. You want changes in the ME and of course there has been HUGE change in that too. Let's be honest, there is an enormous difference in the way the match engine works between FM08 patches never mind about FM07 and FM08.

Call me old fashioned, but I want absolutely nothing new in FM09.

Absoluteabloominflippinnothing.

Instead I want them to look at the existing features that they've already implemented and I want them to "do them to death".

I want Affiliated clubs to be just that, (not feeders).

I want more control over set-piece instructions without having the..... (can't remember what the with/without the ball feature used to be called).

I want national structures to have their reputation linked to Continental coefficients.

I want the Ass Man to do a job that is at least similar to that which he does in real life.

I want my GK being sent off to be a key highlight.

There is sooooo much that SI could improve without adding one single new feature to the game and I for one hope that they get what is already in the game right before introducing something for those customers who are too [text removed to assist with the controlling of Jimbo's blood pressue and to avoid countless tit for tat posts].

Originally posted by Jimbokav1971:
Just looking at this issue off the top of my head.

New skin.
New best eleven feature.
New tactical feature (opposition instructions).
New Transfer Centre screen.
New coach report system.
New Assistant reports screen.
New player match rating system...

To be honest I could go on and on listing differences between FM07 & FM08. You want changes in the ME and of course there has been HUGE change in that too. Let's be honest, there is an enormous difference in the way the match engine works between FM08 patches never mind about FM07 and FM08.

Call me old fashioned, but I want absolutely nothing new in FM09.

Absoluteabloominflippinnothing.

Instead I want them to look at the existing features that they've already implemented and I want them to "do them to death".

I want Affiliated clubs to be just that, (not feeders).

I want more control over set-piece instructions without having the..... (can't remember what the with/without the ball feature used to be called).

I want national structures to have their reputation linked to Continental coefficients.

I want the Ass Man to do a job that is at least similar to that which he does in real life.

I want my GK being sent off to be a key highlight.

There is sooooo much that SI could improve without adding one single new feature to the game and I for one hope that they get what is already in the game right before introducing something for those customers who are too [text removed to assist with the controlling of Jimbo's blood pressue and to avoid countless tit for tat posts].

Said something along these lines myself not too long ago, all i want for christmas is a fixed FM08 lol

Stuff the new faetures, it can wait until FM10, just give us a finished game.

theres loads of stuff that can me extended or "done to death" in fm08, and still plenty of stuff that needs to be fixed. no need to go trying to be revolutionary when its simply not called for. fix whats out there first

Originally posted by Ackter:
Tactical sliders - not one person who says they should be replaced has come up with even a remotely good alternative, let alone a better alternative.

Set piece editor - isn't going to happen any time soon bacuse it would give the human managers a massive advantage over the AI. It would need an absolutely massive amount of work to get it working right, and an even larger amount of work to get the AI using it properly.

As long as 'super-set-pieces' are not possible and SI have programmed enough variations for the AI to use, I can't see why it is not achievable with a year's development.

fm 08 isnt an unchanged game though, is it?? whatever you do, ther will be bugs, and, logic says, in a completely new game, there will be more bugs than on a newer version of what we have now. imagine the forums then??? its bad enough as it is now, it would be a nightmare...

Originally posted by djht:
The 'fix the game' sentiment has been out there since FM 2006. But for some reason SI hasn't done it. Even without significant new improvements, new bugs are introduced (e.g. from 7.0.2 to 8.0.1).

Between the options of having an unchanged game + new bugs and having an significantly improved game + new bugs I'd easily go with the latter.

You appear to have missed the point.

The purpose of NOT changing the game dramatically is to get rid of new bugs - no new features should mean drastically reduced bugs.

originally posted by djht:-
The current slider tactical system has reached its development potential. It needs to be replaced by something more flexible and realistic. There should more tactical variables but fewer ordinal options within each variable.

I always assumed that the increase in sliders and options was partly driven by the desire to eliminate super tactics. The more permutations and combinations there are the less likely it is that someone can figure out a golden combination that exploits the match engine. At the end of the day it is a computer game and those little blobs need to have set instructions that help them to make their decisions.

Admittedly I'm not a big fan of the 20 settings for sliders and the system as a whole. But as it stands I can't think of a viable alternative. Within the current match engine this tactical system allows you to set up your players to do what you want them to do (whether or not they do it depends on the player's mental attributes and Creative Freedom).

quote:

originally posted by djht:-

The game can also be vastly improved by introducing a set piece and set play designer. It could do with more options to set up combinations between specific players in a tactical system.

I have a problem with the concept of set piece editor though.....it would result in ultimate cheat tactics, that the AI manageres could never keep up with.......

The perfect example of what I believe PaulC is referring to was that cheat on FM 06 (I think it was that version) on corners where if you set all of the attacking players to far/near post and assigned your best long shooter to lurk you could score a decent amount of goals.

The same could be said of the near post flick on in FM07 yet funnily enough because this element of 'unrealistic behaviour' worked in the gamer's favour there weren't too many people joining the forum just to complain about that.

quote:

originally posted by djht:-

I think SI are focusing too heavily on recreating "realistic" score lines and league tables for the ai; on "tweaking" the current framework to the nth degree of realism. However I think so long as the current tactical module remains unchanged, that nth degree cannot be achieved because the match engine is limited in its potential.

Personally I think the idea of tuning the match engine based on AI stats is crucial to the realism of the FM world. For example just playing in the Premiership there are 19 AI controlled teams involved in 684 matches with no human manager. If the results in these matches deviated significantly from their attempt at simulation then the whole framework within which the gamer's experience exists would collapse.

What will be interesting to see is how the match engine evolves over the next 3 to 5 iterations with the addition of data from FML involving human controlled teams in larger numbers. It is probably the biggest challenge SI face as they will need to get the balance between the 'Human' manager's experience and the 'AI' manager's experience of the FM world just right.

Originally posted by Ackter:
It depends on the fix - for example to do what needs to be done to the financial, transfer and contract system would take as much work (if not more) as completely re-writing it.

Out of both of those I have a feeling that fixing the system would be more likely to create bugs than a rewrite would.

Hasn't the financial part already been rewritten? Or am I just being pedantic? Don;t answer that!

Views expressed in this post are those of the author & do not necessarily represent the views of SI

Posts

38,594

quote:

Originally posted by playmaker:

quote:

Originally posted by Ackter:
It depends on the fix - for example to do what needs to be done to the financial, transfer and contract system would take as much work (if not more) as completely re-writing it.

Out of both of those I have a feeling that fixing the system would be more likely to create bugs than a rewrite would.

Hasn't the financial part already been rewritten? Or am I just being pedantic? Don;t answer that!

Yeah a hell of a lot of work was done on the financial side, I was more talking about the transfers and contracts side of things.

Originally posted by djht:
If you're going to fanboy can you at least give some constructive reasons to back up a "no". I mean the onus is surely on the game to constantly improve rather than remain static.

Right, fair enough.

According to Joel on Software, whom I presume knows more about software development than the average forum poster , a rewrite is "The Single Worst Strategic Mistake that any software company can make."

Views expressed in this post are those of the author & do not necessarily represent the views of SI

Posts

38,594

quote:

Originally posted by playmaker:

quote:

Originally posted by PaulC:-

I have a problem with the concept of set piece editor though.....it would result in ultimate cheat tactics, that the AI manageres could never keep up with.......

Ah, well I guess that rains on my parade then!

Personally I don't think we need one anyway- there are other ways to get the effect.

I think the less say we have on set pieces, then the more realistic they can become. Currently the set pieces are incredibly restricted and just aren't realistic. The options just don't make sense as they're not dynamic enough.

Along with this you'd then get specific set piece instructions added to the oppositions instructions screen so that we can effectively mark danger men (which we can't do at the moment).

Linking it in with training would then be essential, as the amount of work done on it in training will have a direct effect on the outcome of the set pieces - at the moment all it does is effect a few attributes.

Training is definitely an area that needs to be drastically improved considering how important it is in real life.

Ideally I'd like to see an activity based training system similar to the one in cm03/04 but with real effects on team performance on match day, not just with marginal effects on individual attributes. For example, there could be three different 'attacking overload' schedules - patient, normal, direct - and the choice could affect match day performance so that a team could specialise and develop their style of play.

- Have a series of pre-set routines - the method of getting them doesn't matter, but they could easily be created in your suggested interface or the existing interface, just like the templates for player instructions. Attacking wise we would be talking 'near post flick on', 'short corner', 'best headers run-in', 'vary runs', 'disrupt keepe' and so on.

- In training you can select one or more routines to practice. The amount of time given over to them is set by the set piece slider. The more you train a routine, the more familiarity you build up. Familiarity can be lost over time. In this way, the AI can achieve exactly the same as the human.

Now that should be achievable in one year. At least then it comes down to priorities.

Keep the individual training as it is and introduce a new "team training" module. The "team training" module will work as I outlined in the last post.

Individual training will be related to team training. High tactical individual training will increase the effectiveness of tactical team training activities for the individual player; high physical will improve "direct" style team training activities and so on. Vice versa, team training will also have a supplementary effect on individual attributes.

Originally posted by playmaker:
This is how I would want to approach it (now).

- Have a series of pre-set routines - the method of getting them doesn't matter, but they could easily be created in your suggested interface or the existing interface, just like the templates for player instructions. Attacking wise we would be talking 'near post flick on', 'short corner', 'best headers run-in', 'vary runs', 'disrupt keepe' and so on.

- In training you can select one or more routines to practice. The amount of time given over to them is set by the set piece slider. The more you train a routine, the more familiarity you build up. Familiarity can be lost over time. In this way, the AI can achieve exactly the same as the human.

Now that should be achievable in one year. At least then it comes down to priorities.

That's definitely a good idea for developing set pieces. My posts were more along the lines of match day performance and team gelling when you set a particular tactic. Basically we should be able to develop on a certain 'style of play' for the team, whether you're Sam Alladyce or Arsene Wenger.

It has to be assumed that each component of the game is developed as a separate “module”. Therefore the tactics and training module, is separate to the financial module, which is again separate module to say scouting.

That being the case, there should be opportunities to “fix” or repair various modules without a total meltdown from bugs occurring.

It then becomes the developers job to see how all the links and interactivity goes when you turn on the finished project.

Having said all that, for me at least the priorities are as follows:

Training
Tactics (including set pieces)
Transfer system.

It should be pointed out of course that players in real life, don’t always engage a training ground routine at deadball situations, sometimes opportunities arise that demand players be inventive.

Additionally, players such as David Beckham need no set piece plan, they just rely on their ability which is honed in training sessions.

As a Manager IRL, I like to rehearse players in dead ball situations, but I also allow a lot of flexibility based on the players intelligence and ability in a match situation.

Truth is, no one has time to plan and execute all the various possibilities that can and do occur in a game situations.

Im gonna say yes. FM is in need of another large update. For the last couple of years we have been given only tiny new additions that arent exactly worth writing about. To make things worse most of them are buggy (confidence, feeders, scouting, reports, etc) or just awful (team talks, new skin, opposition instructions, media, financial model).

We need improved match graphics so that we can see better whats going on. We need a match analyzing tool. We need a new tactics designer because no one besides the SI programmers knows what the hell is going on there and they dont want to tell anyone how it works. Who can tell me the difference between closing down 6 and 7? no one. There are tons of features FM still lacks and tons of them that are implemented poorly. I know that new features bring new bugs but its not like SI are very good at fixing old bugs anyway. ITs one of the best selling PC games, Their team is small by industry standards and its not like they are actually making a new game. IMO they should have enough money to afford a couple of extra developers if the current bunch cant handle all the work.

I'm for making the features work as much as it's possibile and then move on. honestly I think if bugs could be brought to minimum, this would be a fantastic game. I can't imagine how buggy the game would be if they consantly change things like tactics or transfer systems I believe SI are on right path.

on the other side it's strange that some basic things in ME still not good enough, like positioning, movement...

I'm all for new addtions being bigger and better but I don't want it ending up with gimmicky rubbish like Fifa e.g. have a child, buy a house etc. If I wanted that I would play Sims.

Bugs are part and parcel of every single game you buy, over the past few years I have bought a couple of Champ Managers to see what they were like and returned them because they were so bloody god awful and full of bugs. This isn't to say that I think SI can relax because they are better and being better than CM is good enough, but I think that new features need to be expanded upon rather than more be added straight away.

The tactics system has come under a lot of scrutiny but compared to the old system of 3 options it has improved a lot and I honestly can't think of ways to change it that would be any better at all.

Data updates are readily available on a variety of sites so there is no need to buy the game every year but I for one find myself buying it, thinking the last one was better, trying it again and realising that it isn't as good.

Originally posted by Jimbokav1971:
There is sooooo much that SI could improve without adding one single new feature to the game and I for one hope that they get what is already in the game right before introducing something

You see, I kind of agree.

Then I realise that if 8.0.2 fixes FM08 and there's no changes for FM09, rather then wait six months for the patch to fix FM09 I'm going to save £30 and just download a date update. I kind of wish I'd done that instead of buying FM08.

I think it would be a very poor business decision if SI decided not to add any new features and just fix what is already in the game. FM seems to already be taking baby steps in progressing the game and is starting to feel stale because of it.

Bug fixes should be part of patches, not for the sole reason for releasing a new version. Change is good for games, it keeps the title fresh and maintains the appeal.

FM08 to me doesn't feel that much different to FM05, which is the last FM I played. I skipped 06 and 07 because I didn't feel the 'new' features were worth getting excited about.

Originally posted by Jimbokav1971:
There is sooooo much that SI could improve without adding one single new feature to the game and I for one hope that they get what is already in the game right before introducing something

You see, I kind of agree.

Then I realise that if 8.0.2 fixes FM08 and there's no changes for FM09, rather then wait six months for the patch to fix FM09 I'm going to save £30 and just download a date update. I kind of wish I'd done that instead of buying FM08.

Let's think about this for a second - does anybody seriously believe 8.0.2 will fix even the majority of issues with FM08?

I suspect that the changes many want to see will not be evident until FM09, i would like nothing more than for SI to prove me wrong, but for some reason i just don't see that happening.

Tactical sliders - not one person who says they should be replaced has come up with even a remotely good alternative, let alone a better alternative.

I thought up an idea of tactic configuration being done by visual means, using a graphical notation system somewhat akin to the notation used in tactic books.

With current tactics, besides the different arrows available, you have no idea at a glance how a tactic is actually configured. Moving most of this to a notation system that can be altered similarly to how the current arrow system works, in conjunction with a new right-click menu, you could much easier alter things on the fly without having to keep swapping through different pages for positions or team settings.

Another benefit is you could more easily tie in the graphical notation to how you expect that setting to operate in the match engine, such as closing down. Instead of sliders, you are basically moving graphical elements which do the same thing but are more meaningful and easier to understand.

Originally posted by Powermonger:
FM08 to me doesn't feel that much different to FM05, which is the last FM I played. I skipped 06 and 07 because I didn't feel the 'new' features were worth getting excited about.

I agree, a lot of people who play the game daily between FM05 and FM08 will say differently and the engine (for better or worse) changes every game. But to me, it's feels essentially like the same girl in a different dress.

A lot of thigns like team talks; board, player and media interaction, etc rather then adding to the game have been poorly implemented so just clutter it up.

With tactics and the tactic builder being number orientated rather then feel or general knowledge orientated and the regular 'decline to comment', 'he's a big player but I feel we have adequit cover' and similar clicking it can at time feel like your working a data entry job rather then having fun playing a management game.

A lot of people have noted FM08 isn't as fun as previous incarnations but they're playing on autopilot rather then because they're loving the game currently.

It is the best football management game by a long shot and the competition have all taken routes a lot of us would rather not go down, but something does need to happen to the series to shake things up a bit.

I don't want FM09 to be sold on the 'new' features of lists of the top 10 most capped and highest goal scoring players by country.

Oh yeah, and another thing: I wish there was a corellation between the complaints and the reaction from the FA. As it is now, the FA "remain silent" when you complain about having a player sent off, indicating the referee's decision was incorrect, but the next day reject you appeal, saying that the red card was valid.

What this games need is a detailed manual of how the sliders effect the match engine and what players attributes. Creativity set on high means what for a player whit anticipation of 7 (if anticipation has an effect on creativity). The smoke screen that SI put up by there vague answers or not answering at all is one of the reasons are posting on the form.

One other enigma from the SI dungeons, What are the exact conditions for a stadium extension? When is this exact possible and what does is cost?

Bigger than Sega? Anyway, I find it hard to believe that a company that has produced a relatively cheap game (relative to other contemporary PC games), that has topped the bestseller lists for several years running, finds it financially impossible to have a yearly break. It's more likely that they are contractually obliged to release a new game every year.
Not that it makes any difference - hey, if I had a game that sold well every year regardless of the state it's in, I wouldn't take any breaks either

Originally posted by endtime:
Bigger than Sega? Anyway, I find it hard to believe that a company that has produced a relatively cheap game (relative to other contemporary PC games), that has topped the bestseller lists for several years running, finds it financially impossible to have a yearly break. It's more likely that they are contractually obliged to release a new game every year.
Not that it makes any difference - hey, if I had a game that sold well every year regardless of the state it's in, I wouldn't take any breaks either

There is a big difference between large publishers buying small studios and leaving them to run autonomously and large publishers setting up studios and supplying a budget.

Sega don't fund SI, SI fund SI.

Sega is responsible for the marketing of the game and as such finance that part. Development budgets are entirely down to SI.

Originally posted by endtime:
Bigger than Sega? Anyway, I find it hard to believe that a company that has produced a relatively cheap game (relative to other contemporary PC games), that has topped the bestseller lists for several years running, finds it financially impossible to have a yearly break. It's more likely that they are contractually obliged to release a new game every year.
Not that it makes any difference - hey, if I had a game that sold well every year regardless of the state it's in, I wouldn't take any breaks either

There is a big difference between large publishers buying small studios and leaving them to run autonomously and large publishers setting up studios and supplying a budget.

Sega don't fund SI, SI fund SI.

Sega is responsible for the marketing of the game and as such finance that part. Development budgets are entirely down to SI.

And lets not forget that if SI did decide to relase FM every two years, it would run the risk of seeing CM and FIFA taking a sizable chunk of their market share, and quite possibly damaging the sales of the next edition.

Originally posted by George Graham:
I dont think SI should throw away what they already have- after all the game is designed in a modular form to avoid them having to throw everything out the window.

BUT- boy does this game need an injection of some fresh ideas, and properly realised ones too- not little features here and there that are never realised or fleshed out properly.

Absolutely. I guess behind all this idealism there's a political/strategic reason why things have remained essentially the same. When SI split with eidos it kept the rights to the code. Eidos made Championship Manager 5 (which to be honest I have not played). SI on the other hand marketed Football Manager as the true 'successor' to the series by keeping things unchanged.

But in my opinion eidos has already lost all its credibility with the release of the apparently unplayable CM5. There's no reason for SI to continue this conservative path. Of course, I'm not naive enough to assume that if no changes are released, most of us die hard fans will continue to purchase every upcoming release regardless. I posted this thread with the faint hope that whilst SI is a profit driven business, it is business with some kind of heart.

Originally posted by playmaker:
SI have to release a game each year for it to be financially viable.

There are a lot of games with a longer development cycle and higher production cost which are still financially viable.

Yes, but none of them are sports games jostling for market share with other companies making very similar types of games.

No sports game worth its salt would be released every two years, it would soon lose out to it's annually released competitors. So no, FM should not be realeased every 2 years. If you don't want to buy it every year then don't, but I think you'll be in the minority.
And yes, it would be economic suicide for SI if they did decide to release it every 2 years.

Originally posted by playmaker:
SI have to release a game each year for it to be financially viable.

There are a lot of games with a longer development cycle and higher production cost which are still financially viable.

Yes, but none of them are sports games jostling for market share with other companies making very similar types of games.

No sports game worth its salt would be released every two years, it would soon lose out to it's annually released competitors. So no, FM should not be realeased every 2 years. If you don't want to buy it every year then don't, but I think you'll be in the minority.
And yes, it would be economic suicide for SI if they did decide to release it every 2 years.

What i've suggested previously is do what they did with one of the CMS (01/02 i think) which was basically a patched version of the previous years efforts which SI sold at a lower price - which gave them substantially more time to work on the next installment.

Generally when a game has high costs and a long development time, there's someone footing that bill to have it run that way.
In the case of FM, it is basically funding all SI's operations. Their business plan is based on x units being sold each year at price y giving a return of z.
If you reduce x by having a 2 year development, z drops.
If you reduce y by having a reduced patch release, z drops.

Unless someone makes up that shortfall, there has to be an annual full-price release. It's pretty basic economics.

FM has not improved since the brilliant early Championship Manager games. They truly were remarkable games, spoilt only by the weakness they displayed to wondertactics.

For years the only improvements were more leagues, and a few bolted on features, none of which really affect gameplay but merely reflect current trends in the game.

FM is a cash cow that is the result of lazy development, with no vision for the future and no ambition. The developers are more than happy to pump out the same game every year and take the money. It's worse than the FIFA exploitation ever was, because at least they spent millions improving the graphics between each game.

Personally I play the game because there is no serious alternative. Other games miss the importance of an accurate database and realistic events in game. Games like LMA Manager on the consoles have battered FM in some key areas, then been completely spoilt by having such a poor grasp of reality in the transfer market (Christiano Ronaldo to Notts Forest for £5m anyone?).

FM is a sitting duck. When someone develops a game with a proper presentation technique, with the accuracy of FM's database and realistic in-game events, FM will become redundant overnight. It will happen eventually and SI are certainly displaying no intention of ever improving the presentation element (Both the interface AND the pathetic 2d blob-athon).

Originally posted by morgantjg:
FM is a cash cow that is the result of lazy development, with no vision for the future and no ambition. The developers are more than happy to pump out the same game every year and take the money. It's worse than the FIFA exploitation ever was, because at least they spent millions improving the graphics between each game.

I was thinking how best to respond to that.
I'm going to settle for saying "You haven't the first clue what you are talking about"

Mankind is the only creature smart enough to know its own history, and dumb enough to ignore it.

Posts

30,196

quote:

Originally posted by Dave C:

quote:

Originally posted by morgantjg:
FM is a cash cow that is the result of lazy development, with no vision for the future and no ambition. The developers are more than happy to pump out the same game every year and take the money. It's worse than the FIFA exploitation ever was, because at least they spent millions improving the graphics between each game.

I was thinking how best to respond to that.
I'm going to settle for saying "You haven't the first clue what you are talking about"

Tbh Dave, even that's giving him too much credit.

I spent yesterday at SI Towers, believe me they know what they are about and lazy is not a word which should appear on the same page as the SI name.

Generally when a game has high costs and a long development time, there's someone footing that bill to have it run that way.
In the case of FM, it is basically funding all SI's operations. Their business plan is based on x units being sold each year at price y giving a return of z.
If you reduce x by having a 2 year development, z drops.
If you reduce y by having a reduced patch release, z drops.

Unless someone makes up that shortfall, there has to be an annual full-price release. It's pretty basic economics.

So how exactly did they manage it with CM?

All i'm suggesting is they do something that they have done in the past....

I don't know the stats, but when CM01/02 (or whatever the cheap one was) was released was there a significant drop in sales? I'm not saying that they don't release an FM09, just that it could be better to spend more time on new features rather than letting them out unfinished.

I am quite familiar with how business plans work - and a lot have more scope than merely relying on individual year sales, it's EVEN MORE basic economics.

Originally posted by Kriss:
Ched you can't justify even the proposition of a biannual release without accurate figures, figures which you will never see.

FM08 wasn't unfinished incidentally, it had bugs that we all now know the history of.

You will also have noted the continual "nothing has changed" complaint and yet you advocate changing absolutely nothing for 2 years.
Nothing satisfies everyone because opinions are too diverse.

All i'm saying is that they've done it in the past, why can't they do it in the future?

I made no claim to know the sales figures, hence i am not trying to justify anything, it's just that SI did at one point in history, release a glorified patch, they still exist as a company, therefore it could not have bankrupt them. If miles comes here and says it nearly screwed them then i'll not suggest it again, it's just that it has happened therefore i don't think it is in anyway unreasonable of me to ask if it could happen again?

As to "FM08 wasn't unfinished incidentally" - this is my whole point - in another of my threads, Dave C pointed out that every point i'd made had been brought up in testing - my point is with an extra 12 months, how many points would i have had left to make?

Yes i've noted the "nothing has changed" - so if they compain anyway why pander to them? I know full well that something along these lines will annoy many, that's why i'm not saying "DO IT RIGHT NOW" - just merely asking why it could or couldm't be done.

Your reply was a lot more useful than trying to explain basic economics to an ex-economics student lol

Originally posted by morgantjg:
FM is a cash cow that is the result of lazy development, with no vision for the future and no ambition. The developers are more than happy to pump out the same game every year and take the money. It's worse than the FIFA exploitation ever was, because at least they spent millions improving the graphics between each game.

I was thinking how best to respond to that.
I'm going to settle for saying "You haven't the first clue what you are talking about"

Tbh Dave, even that's giving him too much credit.

I spent yesterday at SI Towers, believe me they know what they are about and lazy is not a word which should appear on the same page as the SI name.

Aye. Anyone who has been there (and that includes me) knows how dedicated those blokes are.

Generally when a game has high costs and a long development time, there's someone footing that bill to have it run that way.
In the case of FM, it is basically funding all SI's operations. Their business plan is based on x units being sold each year at price y giving a return of z.
If you reduce x by having a 2 year development, z drops.
If you reduce y by having a reduced patch release, z drops.

Unless someone makes up that shortfall, there has to be an annual full-price release. It's pretty basic economics.

So how exactly did they manage it with CM?

All i'm suggesting is they do something that they have done in the past....

I don't know the stats, but when CM01/02 (or whatever the cheap one was) was released was there a significant drop in sales? I'm not saying that they don't release an FM09, just that it could be better to spend more time on new features rather than letting them out unfinished.

I am quite familiar with how business plans work - and a lot have more scope than merely relying on individual year sales, it's EVEN MORE basic economics.

When they made that decision, they were a much smaller company and it was easier to do.
Today, it's a much different proposition.

This isn't that hard to figure, and I don't think you're stupid, so why are you struggling to grasp it?
I'm going for wishful thinking!

Originally posted by morgantjg:
FM is a cash cow that is the result of lazy development, with no vision for the future and no ambition. The developers are more than happy to pump out the same game every year and take the money. It's worse than the FIFA exploitation ever was, because at least they spent millions improving the graphics between each game.

I was thinking how best to respond to that.
I'm going to settle for saying "You haven't the first clue what you are talking about"

Tbh Dave, even that's giving him too much credit.

I spent yesterday at SI Towers, believe me they know what they are about and lazy is not a word which should appear on the same page as the SI name.

Aye. Anyone who has been there (and that includes me) knows how dedicated those blokes are.

His claim is that SI's direction is lazy, not that SI are made up of lazy individuals. The claim is based on his judgment of their product throughout the years, which I think is a fair basis for making the judgment.

Besides, a neutral observer's word is far more credible than that of a biased former insider. Of course if you are mates with SI you're going to utter nothing but praise for them.

Originally posted by djht:
Besides, a neutral observer's word is far more credible than that of a biased former insider. Of course if you are mates with SI you're going to utter nothing but praise for them.

A neutral expert's word might be - but how many of the complainants have 3-5 years of software development experience, or better, game development experience?

Originally posted by djht:
His claim is that SI's direction is lazy, not that SI are made up of lazy individuals. The claim is based on his judgment of their product throughout the years, which I think is a fair basis for making the judgment.

Besides, a neutral observer's word is far more credible than that of a biased former insider. Of course if you are mates with SI you're going to utter nothing but praise for them.

Firstly, I'm not a "former insider" and I wouldn't say I'm "mates" with them.
Secondly, how do you know he's neutral? I think very few people are truly neutral.

I do some stuff with them on a voluntary basis as a researcher and a tester. I am a long way from offering nothing but praise, I am incredibly critical, more so than most who post here. The difference is my criticism is balanced and informed (and these days rarely takes place on this forum).

I know full well what his claim is. And I maintain it's rubbish, he doesn't know what he's talking about, and that anyone who has spent time at SI Towers would refute the assertion they were, by any definition, lazy.

Originally posted by morgantjg:
FM is a cash cow that is the result of lazy development, with no vision for the future and no ambition. The developers are more than happy to pump out the same game every year and take the money. It's worse than the FIFA exploitation ever was, because at least they spent millions improving the graphics between each game.

I was thinking how best to respond to that.
I'm going to settle for saying "You haven't the first clue what you are talking about"

Tbh Dave, even that's giving him too much credit.

I spent yesterday at SI Towers, believe me they know what they are about and lazy is not a word which should appear on the same page as the SI name.

Aye. Anyone who has been there (and that includes me) knows how dedicated those blokes are.

His claim is that SI's direction is lazy, not that SI are made up of lazy individuals. The claim is based on his judgment of their product throughout the years, which I think is a fair basis for making the judgment.

Besides, a neutral observer's word is far more credible than that of a biased former insider. Of course if you are mates with SI you're going to utter nothing but praise for them.

Read some of Dave C's posts - in no way does he "utter nothing but praise for them" - his arguments, however are a little bit more thorough than "SI are lazy"

Originally posted by djht:
Besides, a neutral observer's word is far more credible than that of a biased former insider. Of course if you are mates with SI you're going to utter nothing but praise for them.

A neutral expert's word might be - but how many of the complainants have 3-5 years of software development experience, or better, game development experience?

That to me is not relevant because FM is ultimately a computer game designed for the end user, a product. A game reviewer does not need to be a programmer, a film critic does not need to be a cinematographer or actor, a food critic does not need to be a chef.

Ched, ignoring this silly aside, do you see my point about the difference between now and when they delayed for CM4?

Their software portfolio has expanded from 1 to about half-a-dozen games, of which only the PC FM is a major product.
Clearly that changes the business dynamic, and as an ex-economics student I'm sure you know that will have been a conscious, long-term business strategy.

That to me is not relevant because FM is ultimately a computer game designed for the end user, a product. A game reviewer does not need to be a programmer, a film critic does not need to be a cinematographer or actor, a food critic does not need to be a chef.

But a food critic needs to understand food, have a well-developed palate.
A film reviewer benefits from knowing film history.
And a game reviewer benefits from knowing something of the industry.

That to me is not relevant because FM is ultimately a computer game designed for the end user, a product. A game reviewer does not need to be a programmer, a film critic does not need to be a cinematographer or actor, a food critic does not need to be a chef.

But a food critic needs to understand food, have a well-developed palate.
A film reviewer benefits from knowing film history.
And a game reviewer benefits from knowing something of the industry.

The third sentence is not analogous to the first to. Rather, the game reviewer should have vast gaming experiences so that they have other games to compare FM with. That requirement seems to be fulfilled by the poster in question considering his mentioning of LMA Manager, FIFA, early Championship Manager games etc.

Originally posted by Dave C:
Ched, ignoring this silly aside, do you see my point about the difference between now and when they delayed for CM4?

Their software portfolio has expanded from 1 to about half-a-dozen games, of which only the PC FM is a major product.
Clearly that changes the business dynamic, and as an ex-economics student I'm sure you know that will have been a conscious, long-term business strategy.

I can see the point you are trying to make, but rather than burdens i would see the other products as merely an increased contribution to the costs that exist regardless of FM.

I appreciate their other products don't sell anywhere near aas many units, but without any figures all we can do is speculate.

That to me is not relevant because FM is ultimately a computer game designed for the end user, a product. A game reviewer does not need to be a programmer, a film critic does not need to be a cinematographer or actor, a food critic does not need to be a chef.

But a food critic needs to understand food, have a well-developed palate.
A film reviewer benefits from knowing film history.
And a game reviewer benefits from knowing something of the industry.

The third sentence is not analogous to the first to. Rather, the game reviewer should have vast gaming experiences so that they have other games to compare FM with. That requirement seems to be fulfilled by the poster in question considering his mentioning of LMA Manager, FIFA, early Championship Manager games etc.

The third sentence is entirely analogous.
Analogous to "He just needs to have vast gaming experience" would be "He just needs to have eaten lots" or "He just needs to have watched a lot of films"!

Originally posted by Dave C:
Ched, ignoring this silly aside, do you see my point about the difference between now and when they delayed for CM4?

Their software portfolio has expanded from 1 to about half-a-dozen games, of which only the PC FM is a major product.
Clearly that changes the business dynamic, and as an ex-economics student I'm sure you know that will have been a conscious, long-term business strategy.

I can see the point you are trying to make, but rather than burdens i would see the other products as merely an increased contribution to the costs that exist regardless of FM.

I appreciate their other products don't sell anywhere near aas many units, but without any figures all we can do is speculate.

If the company hadn't expanded, you'd be right in saying other products just contributed to existing costs.
But the company has expanded to develop those other products, meaning costs have also increased away from FM.

We know FM is comfortably the major income generator, just by working from sales charts (FM appears, the other products don't).
We know SI are a much-expanded company to meet the demands of several recent developments.